• Sign up or login, and you'll have full access to opportunities of forum.

What Roman Men Liked ...

Go to CruxDreams.com
Barbaria1

Barbaria1

Rebel Leader
Staff member
In doing some reading on Roman culture I came across a piece that described what Roman men found erotically attractive in the female form. Their interest was apparently focused below the waist. According to this piece, they liked their women broad-hipped and fleshy around the hips, thighs, and ass. They were generally not so interested in women’s breasts, thinking of them in a more functional rather than an erotic way. They preferred small-breasted women. In fact, Roman women went to great lengths, including creams and wrappings to minimize their breasts. I’ve always known that cultures can have widely differing views on what is erotically attractive in the opposite sex. If this account of Roman ideals is true (and I don’t know if it is), I think my own figure hanging naked on a cross might have been less appealing to Roman men than I may have previously imagined…kinda of a deflating thought. Oh well.

Comments, serious or humorous?
 
Well I would agree with always reading something with the proviso that a lot of people tend to project their own preconceptions and desires onto the evidence.

Another thing to remember is that the 'Romans' represent a pretty large chunk of history...even starting with the Classical Republic to the end of the Principate that is around 200 BC to 280 AD and you can stretch it both ways. Roman fashions change...think on how fashions in your home burg have changed in just a few decades and you will realise that you cannot assume that attitudes towards breasts in Rome remained constant.

Finally take a look at some Roman era statuary of Goddesses and Nymphs and the like...a great many of these have rather substantial busts by pre-silicon standards so I am not at all convinced you need worry :D
 
RacingRodent said:
Well I would agree with always reading something with the proviso that a lot of people tend to project their own preconceptions and desires onto the evidence.

Another thing to remember is that the 'Romans' represent a pretty large chunk of history...even starting with the Classical Republic to the end of the Principate that is around 200 BC to 280 AD and you can stretch it both ways. Roman fashions change...think on how fashions in your home burg have changed in just a few decades and you will realise that you cannot assume that attitudes towards breasts in Rome remained constant.

Finally take a look at some Roman era statuary of Goddesses and Nymphs and the like...a great many of these have rather substantial busts by pre-silicon standards so I am not at all convinced you need worry :D
Click to expand...

and she is happy again
 
Barbaria1 said:
In doing some reading on Roman culture I came across a piece that described what Roman men found erotically attractive in the female form. Their interest was apparently focused below the waist. According to this piece, they liked their women broad-hipped and fleshy around the hips, thighs, and ass. They were generally not so interested in women’s breasts, thinking of them in a more functional rather than an erotic way. They preferred small-breasted women. In fact, Roman women went to great lengths, including creams and wrappings to minimize their breasts. I’ve always known that cultures can have widely differing views on what is erotically attractive in the opposite sex. If this account of Roman ideals is true (and I don’t know if it is), I think my own figure hanging naked on a cross might have been less appealing to Roman men than I may have previously imagined…kinda of a deflating thought. Oh well.

Comments, serious or humorous?
Click to expand...
For have a correct idea of roman preferences upon a female forms it's interesting the view of Pompeian 'lupanare' pictures.
('lupanare' is brothel)pompei.jpg
 
J
Barbaria1 said:
In doing some reading on Roman culture I came across a piece that described what Roman men found erotically attractive in the female form. Their interest was apparently focused below the waist. According to this piece, they liked their women broad-hipped and fleshy around the hips, thighs, and ass. They were generally not so interested in women’s breasts, thinking of them in a more functional rather than an erotic way. They preferred small-breasted women. In fact, Roman women went to great lengths, including creams and wrappings to minimize their breasts. I’ve always known that cultures can have widely differing views on what is erotically attractive in the opposite sex. If this account of Roman ideals is true (and I don’t know if it is), I think my own figure hanging naked on a cross might have been less appealing to Roman men than I may have previously imagined…kinda of a deflating thought. Oh well.

Comments, serious or humorous?
Click to expand...
Just speaking for myself I'm glad your lady hanging from her cross has big breasts. But then again a Roman I ain't. :)
 
I'm inclined to agree with RR's theory of changing taste and fashion. Take for instance the Flappers of the 1920's, women were desperately trying to maintain a "boyish" figure. Taping their breasts and almost cursing the natural curves of their hips and thighs. Oddly enough, there was also the hour glass figure of May West.
She had a figure that in no way conformed to the trend of the "boyish" look.

In the end, all that really matters is how a woman sees herself and if she is comfortable in her own skin. True beauty is more than simply trends or fashion.

Most importantly though ... do we really care what Roman men thought was attractive ??? :D
 
LittleSiss said:
I'm inclined to agree with RR's theory of changing taste and fashion. Take for instance the Flappers of the 1920's, women were desperately trying to maintain a "boyish" figure. Taping their breasts and almost cursing the natural curves of their hips and thighs. Oddly enough, there was also the hour glass figure of May West.
She had a figure that in no way conformed to the trend of the "boyish" look.

In the end, all that really matters is how a woman sees herself and if she is comfortable in her own skin. True beauty is more than simply trends or fashion.

Most importantly though ... do we really care what Roman men thought was attractive ??? :D
Click to expand...
of course you do.....................................................crosses decorated with nude girliesflesh
 
Ovid, Elegy 1.5, gives a fair idea of what one lusty Roman liked -
here's Kit Marlowe's lusty translation (from the early 1590s)

In summer’s heat and mid-time of the day
To rest my limbs upon a bed I lay,
One window shut, the other open stood,
Which gave such light as twinkles in a wood,
Like twilight glimpse at setting of the sun
Or night being past, and yet not day begun.
Such light to shamefaced maidens must be shown,
Where they may sport, and seem to be unknown.
Then came Corinna in a long loose gown,
Her white neck hid with tresses hanging down:
Resembling fair Semiramis going to bed
Or Laïs of a thousand wooers sped.
I snatched her gown, being thin, the harm was small,
Yet strived she to be covered therewithal.
And striving thus as one that would be cast,
Betrayed herself, and yielded at the last.
Stark naked as she stood before mine eye,
Not one wen in her body could I spy.

What arms and shoulders did I touch and see,
How apt her breasts were to be pressed by me?
How smooth a belly under her waist saw I?
How large a leg, and what a lusty thigh?
To leave the rest, all liked me passing well,
I clinged her naked body, down she fell,
Judge you the rest: being tired she bad me kiss,
Jove send me more such afternoons as this.
 
Barbaria1 said:
In doing some reading on Roman culture I came across a piece that described what Roman men found erotically attractive in the female form. Their interest was apparently focused below the waist. According to this piece, they liked their women broad-hipped and fleshy around the hips, thighs, and ass. They were generally not so interested in women’s breasts, thinking of them in a more functional rather than an erotic way. They preferred small-breasted women. In fact, Roman women went to great lengths, including creams and wrappings to minimize their breasts. I’ve always known that cultures can have widely differing views on what is erotically attractive in the opposite sex. If this account of Roman ideals is true (and I don’t know if it is), I think my own figure hanging naked on a cross might have been less appealing to Roman men than I may have previously imagined…kinda of a deflating thought. Oh well.

Comments, serious or humorous?
Click to expand...
Broad hips, big butt, narrow waistline and breasts of moderate size? - I suspect I for one would have been doing prettty fine among ancient Roman masters :) - maybe it would be a ticket to the cross ! :eek: haha!
 
Don't worry, Tree !

It happens all the time.

We still don't like it but we say it's fine.

Fine is the tell, Geeze !!!!!!!!!!!

They never get that ... do they U.

:p
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom